Nietzsche and blogging, Genius and the malice it must endure

Was Nietzsche the first blogger?

My books are holistic. All my writing is. I cannot repeat the entire foundation arguments each time I build upon them. And so you will have to read the books if you do not automatically connect with my blogg arguments. They are not complete. They are just the tips of arguments, like the point of a triangle, or the peak of a mountain. You have to climb the mountain to appreciate them. It’s like getting dropped off by a helicopter on Mt Everest. I don’t expect many of you to be in a position to appreciate and understand them.  But they will  give you some idea of how it is up here, where the air is refined and clear, but very thin. It is not for the weak minded, nor weak of character. Few ever even consider climbing as high as a Nietzsche, Hume, Freud, or Epicurus.

And these heroes all share something in common with other ‘high’ achievers. Their peers do not want them to achieve. In fact they will sabotage their efforts. And then if they cannot manage to ensure the failure of the ambitious, they will seek to underplay the value of their achievements.

A geniuses talent, their genius, is only credited and recognised, let alone actually applauded and rewarded, after decades of struggle, and often only after their death. This is consistent enough for it to have been an archetype at least as early as Ancient Greek Tragedy. The hero suffers, achieves great feats, overcomes great hardship and obstacles, to either die alone in poverty, or to be actively murdered by his peers. Only after his death is he venerated, often even as a god.

The passive form of this is to ignore the person, and leave them to die from neglect, rather than direct abuse. The direct abuse in this case usually only takes the form of maliciously intended, derogatory criticism and dismissal. I say malicious, rather than constructive, as it is intended as a form of violence. The people have not managed to build themselves up into a frenzied mob, to overcome their more social inhibitions against actually directly physically harming their better, their superior. So they make due with the less direct forms of violence. However their intentions are the same. To destroy their betters, their superiors.

And where the socio-historical moment is ripe for it, the people will build themselves up into a frenzied mob, and either murder the individual themselves, or demand that their legal authorities do it for them. Of course later in history when the society begrudgingly admits the genius of the victim, the society will then be able to blame the acts on the judges. They will be able to wash their hands of the act.

We hate our betters. They make us feel less worthy, less good, less valuable. We fear rejection and abandonment. That is being generous. To be more brutal, we hate anyone who is better than us. We burn with envy and jealousy, and want to destroy them. We are furious with anyone who would dare even try to be better than us. At school we bully and mob them. We do the same when we are taller but no ‘bigger’, in the workplace, and in our public and private lives. Women call it ‘bitching’. We try to undermine each other’s accomplishments, whether physical, social, business, or intellectual. We try to cut down the tall poppies. It is logical, as they make us look bad by comparison. It is logical as we risk losing our relative status, and the benefits that go with status. Our better show us up as inferior.

And when their ambition is of a ‘moral‘ nature, when they are striving to be, and even worse, actively being, better people, they hold up a mirror to our own less than ideal ethics and behaviors. They show us up. They highlight our imperfections. They clearly shout out that it is possible to be better than we currently are. They deny us the ability to deny that it is not possible.  They rob us of our treasured excuses as to why we cannot be better than we are. They deny us denial. We cannot deny that it is possible to behave better, and to produce a better, fairer, more creative and beautiful world, when there are people right up in our faces who are actually behaving better, and working hard, making sacrifices, in order to realise their vision of a better world. They explode all our excuses. They reveal us for what we are. Lazy. Of poor character. Selfish. Mean. Nasty. Malicious.

And this will not do. How dare they show us up like that. Our blood boils with indignant rage against this Jesus, this Socrates, this ‘good’ person. How dare they be good. How dare they be better than us. How dare they hold up mirrors to our faces, and show us the truth about ourselves! They must die. Preferably a long and painful death. But if that would reveal too much about our true motives and intentions, then we will settle for a quiet poisoning. We will have to settle for that, if we are to maintain our self deceptions regarding our true motives. We want to pretend our motives are noble, good and righteous, rather than nasty, ugly, base and mean.

When our ‘better’ ‘superior’ genius’s talent is less of a moral, and more of a technical nature, when their achievements are in the fields of art and culture, we rarely go this far. Instead we deny their genius and achievements, so that the possessor, who struggled so hard, who sacrificed so much, who worked so hard and long to develop their talents and to employ them productively, should never personally benefit from them. That would not be fair now, would it! Why should they benefit from their talent. It was not fair that they should be born more talented than us. Even if this talent was only for disciplined, dedicated, passionate, ambitious passion to achieve something, more than any inherent extra talent or ability, relative to the general population.

No, history shows, that we deliberately wait until the person can no longer benefit personally, when they are old and decrepit, preferably insane, or dead. Then we can claim all the benefits for ourselves. We can put ourselves up on a pedestal by being among those capable of recognising genius. This must surely reflect well upon us. For we, unlike the others, are able to understand their achievements. This means we must be very clever. And so more and more people want to appear clever to, and soon the genius is applauded throughout the land. They are often deified as demi-gods, if not actual gods per se.

And those who lived among the geniuses, passively destroying them with their neglect and indifference, if not directly trying to undermine them with ignorant criticism and derision, will bask in the limelight of their association. They will make up stories that put themselves in a positive light, as their audience hungrily devour any stories they can share about the genius that lived among them. They will often claim to have be sympathetic and helpful, when the rest of the world had mocked and derided the genius. They had had the genius themselves to recognise the genius’s value even as the rest of the world had scorned and ignored them!

And against the flood of positive re-evaluation of the genius, even those who would prefer to harm them even after their death, will give in, not wanting to appear ignorant, or as malicious, nasty, mean and base as their characters really are. So the majority will join in the popular approval and recognition, rather than attempting to fight the tide of public opinion. And so our genius, after he can no longer derive any personal benefit from it, will have his talent, effort, and sacrifices finally recognised, validated, and acknowledged. He will be famous.

And then everyone will hold him up as a role model. They will even exaggerate much of his character and life. They will attribute him super-powers, and employ this new mythical person as a means to their own ends. A Plato or Paul will use them as their own puppet, putting words into their mouths, ascribing them deeds, building them up into sources of authority which they can then bathe themselves and their own arguments in, a-la ‘transferred’ authority. They can claim that this super-man shared their own opinions. They will claim this super-man said so and so and recommended we do so and so, and lived so and so as a role model for us. They will use the dead man, who they have built up into a super-man, to get acceptance for their own arguments and their own beliefs. Thus we get a ‘Socrates’ mouthing the arguments of a ‘Plato’, or a ‘Jesus’ mouthing the arguments of a ‘Paul’, ‘Mark’, ‘John’, ‘Matthew’ and so on.

If you have studied Freud and Hume you will get all this. Otherwise study them, or read my TROONATNOOR books.

Hume explained how the emotional energy derived from the jealousy and envy we feel for those more fortunate than ourselves, and which produces antipathy in us for our betters, can end up fueling a co-existent admiration for their talents and good fortune, so much that the positive feeling becomes the dominant one. We aspire to be fortunate ourselves. We imagine how it would be to enjoy the good fortune or success of our betters. We imagine how it would be to be like them. Thus we can come to love our betters. Freud reminds us how we love others as projections of our ideal selves. The selves we would love to be. The selves we aspire to becoming. And so, as per the motto ‘If you don’t get yours I won’t get mine as well’, we endure another’s good fortune simply to keep the hope alive of one day also being fortunate. It is only those who have lost all hope of joining the beneficiary classes that claim to be socialists. It is only those at the bottom of the wheel of fortune, with nothing to lose, who desire that the wheel should ‘revolve’ (revolution). Thus we sympathise with the fortunate, and feel good-will towards them, for we want to be them. And if they managed to enjoy the good life, it means it might be possible for us to also. If no-one was fortunate, then we would lose all hope of becoming fortunate ourselves. And so we are motivated to protect them, to protect our own hopes. And at least while they enjoy such public favor, those with no hope, and no good-will towards the fortunate, will be checked in their ambitions to destroy them for lack of public support.

But be wary. The malice lingers. It does not take much for it to once more become the dominant motive, and to absorb all the energy of the previous good-will, feeding upon it until it devours it entirely, and unleashes all that is malicious and base in human nature, and the god is crucified by its previous devotees. Of course in hindsight they will deify their victim, and spin their own actions into a perverse nobility in which they were killing their god as part of some necessity, or they will simply deny responsibility, and blame someone else for the acts.

Hume notes that when too competing emotions towards someone or something exists, the stronger of the two will absorb the energy of the weaker, thus annihilating it, and bringing clarity to our wills, our emotions. This is the preferred state of our minds, to rest on something firmly and securely. It is a pleasurable feeling, compared to the displeasure of uncertainty. Anyone who has not studied Hume directly, or through my books, cannot claim to understand much at all about reality.

Hume explains how we sometimes recognise genius in people even while they are alive, and able to benefit from it. Our first impulse will usually be to harm them, to cut them down to size, to deny their achievements or talents, and so prevent them from casting a shadow over our mediocrity.

However if someone manages to find a way to benefit from their talent themselves, they will recognise it, as a means to their own ends. Thus an art collector in possession of many works of an artist can begin the cycle of recognition. As a ‘critic’, they can appear to be a genius themselves, by having recognised the genius of the artist. As they own paintings, they stand to benefit personally if the artist gains wider recognition. They will recommend the artist’s work to their friends and other dealers. Together they will produce a market for their art. This will drive up its value. This will attract ever wider attention. The general public will only pay attention when the paintings sell at auction for incredible sums, as opportunists seeking to speculative gains buy and sell the art works, often deliberately, to lift their market values, with the intention of finally passing them on at great personal profit, independent of any interest in the art itself. Just like any speculative situation, a small group of people can keep buying and selling something until an outsider buys it at a hugely inflated price. Then you share the windfalls among your ‘syndicate’.

Anyway, the point is, someone must have a motive to help someone else. Their help is not motivated by a desire to benefit the genius and to promote their work. It is to employ the genius’s work as a means to their own ends and benefit.

And so we have art dealers, a music ‘industry’, publishers, and so on, to thank for saving our greatest artists from being crucified by their peers out of sheer jealousy and rage, even though their motives are usually purely selfish, rather than driven by any intrinsic love of art, literature, or music.  They see the possibility of making lots of money, or at least personal fame, as the discovery of a great new talent.

And once a person is recognised somewhere else, our best chance to benefit is to pretend that we too comprehend their genius. This will reflect well upon us. We will appear cultured and educated and intellectual. Of course their genius was evident to us from the very beginning! And we have nothing to benefit from denying it. It is a fait accompli. We would simply look foolish. How dare we contradict public opinion. So the best thing is to try to be the first to recognise the genius. We will all jump over ourselves to be the first to lavish praise upon them, so as to bask in their genius, and to define ourselves as their peers, and as people of excellent judgment and taste.

The critics will earn their own reputation by writing as eloquently and powerfully about the genius and their talent as they can. In fact, if you want public acclaim, then give the critics something to write about. Make it possible for them to  sound clever and they will praise you without end. Facilitate their own success, but letting them sound intelligent, and they will write about you, and facilitate your success. Live an interesting, romantic life, and that will make it even easier, especially if you are an artist. If you are a musician or actor, then get into trouble and get yourself into the news for millions of unpaid, and unbuyable, publicity. Let your interviewers appear clever, witty, and informed, and they will love you.

It is so hard to keep a coherent line when you have so much to say, and realise your audience, for the most part, are belligerent towards you, and what you have to say. But I have tried. Ideally you would take the time to read my books. Of course that would mean risking that I might actually benefit from all my hard work and sacrifice.  You would prefer that I gained no benefit from an unfair distribution of talents. But are you aware of how much I have suffered for this?  I am not sure I would wish such talents upon anyone, unless I really hated them. For they bring me nothing but frustration, belligerence, hatred, violence, and all the other costs associated with being marginalised, rejected, and abandoned. I would certainly not inflict them upon anyone I imagined I loved, such as my own ‘not-yet-conceived’ (never to be conceived if they are lucky) children. Or is that it, when it comes down to it. You want me to suffer for my talents. Study Freud or read my books, before you bother getting indignant with me for daring to write things like this, especially without the ‘safety-net’ of humor!

Now a brief Nietzschean blogg on legal justice

In order for our legal system to be forced to direct its resources towards actual justice, it must be possible for legal counsel to be ‘switched’ during a trial. This would make it impossible to pervert justice by reference to ‘counsel-client privilege’, which means that the lawyer with information which would actually ensure justice was actually served, is not allowed to reveal that information. In other words one person, a lawyer, might have clear evidence, even an admission of guilt, from their client, which would certainly make justice swift and fair, but they can keep it secret. This is an absurd notion. Or at least it would be, if you assumed that the point of trials was to identify the guilty, and to exonerate the innocent. Of course that would be naive of you. The legal justice system was designed to protect the rich from prosecution, and to persecute the poor slaves.

Now if you could ‘switch’ legal counsel, then the poor person fighting against their own corrupt government would be able to swap their legal aid lawyer for a the Queens Council the government hired to do its dirty work. Imagine that. Imagine how the O.J Simpson trial would have went if the State had had his legal team on their side! Not to mention all the insider knowledge they had, all the admissions they had obtained from O.J, and the consistently failed lie detector tests they had had made, but had been able to disclose from the jury, under the guise of ‘client-lawyer privilege’.

I saw a televisions documentary in which the Judge clearly had no idea about the law, and the lawyers sucked up to him, pretending his obviously did. Anyway, the point was, the law clearly mandated a particular sentence for the ‘crime’ the defendant had committed. There was no need for a trial, let alone a lawyer or judge. The sentence was dictated by law. The judge went on and on about the defendants past criminal history, when this had absolutely no bearing on the dealings of the court in this case. The mandatory sentence was a suspended sentence, and a good behavior bond. The lawyer had to remind the judge about this. The judge appeared to have had no idea, based on his actions. This meant the lawyer should have been absolutely unnecessary. It was a trial for possession of cannabis. A first offense.  A clearly pre-determined legal outcome. Why did this poor guy have to spend thousands of dollars on legal representation, just to get the judge to do the simplest task?  How could the judge be so incompetent?

It must become law for every legal code to be simplified and expressed in language that any average citizen could understand, without the need for ‘interpretation’. Without this fundamental right we will never have justice. We must abolish the ‘legal justice system’, and replace it with a ‘justice system’. Stop abusing language. Limit trials to facts and reasonable assumptions. Do not allow any insinuation, games, psychological manipulation, abuse, insults, and time wasting. Legal counsel must have absolutely no vested interest in the outcomes of trials. They cannot be motivated by anything except the desire that justice be served. If they have any other extrinsic motive, they cannot be expected to be even seeking justice.  We then need to train people in the sorts of reasoning skills I have outlined in my TROONATNOOR books.

One day courts will be set up to seek the truth, or the closest approximation the facts and  compelling arguments  will allow. Today we have lawyers and judges seeking to prove themselves right, to enforce their own opinions, to defend the guilty and to persecute the innocent. Any time justice is actually served it is merely coincidental.

The legal justice system as it operates today is all about  pride, self-righteousness, prejudice, and desire for political power and financial reward. No reasonable person could expect a system built upon those foundations to be capable of ever serving the interests of justice. But then, do we really want justice?

Hold on for one more day, things will go your way?

This is the motto of the slave-owner. They want their slaves to endure their hardship, and count on their good fortune, better luck, satisfaction, and enjoyment, being just around the next corner. In this way they endure each day anew, believing that this will be the day when their ship comes in. And when it isn’t, then there is always tomorrow. In this way they are tricked into enduring an eternity of dissatisfaction, disappointment, displeasure, exploitation, suffering, pain, even agony. The eternal lie of false hope and unfounded optimism is the fodder of evolution, and of all slave society’s. It is how slave masters get their slaves to continue serving the master’s interests, as means to the master’s ends, day after day, life after life. It is the false hope perhaps that most foils Buddha’s attempts to ‘enlighten’ and ‘free’ us. This hope is absurdly false. Things do not change. If anything, those with fortunate holistic inheritances accumulate more good fortune, and those with the least fortunate holistic inheritances lose anything they might have started with. How often has anyone’s luck actually changed?  How few in a Billion? While the ‘rags to riches’ story is appealing, it is hardly representative. Only a desperate gambler would bet on those odds.

It is worth noting that people traditionally define bad luck as earned, either through deeds in this life, or in past lives. In this way the lucky get to define their luck as ‘just’ and ‘fair’, and to justify their exploitation of the less fortunate. For surely god must be rewarding themselves, and punishing the unlucky?  How appealingly masturbatory! How convenient! How satisfying! Who are the lucky to thwart God’s or Karma’s will?  Surely the unlucky have earned their misfortune by displeasing God. They must be bad. They deserve to be exploited and enslaved. Surely this is God’s intention. Surely this is the best way to redeem them for the bad karma earned in past lives!

And so you can see why people would be less than keen to advertise any misfortune or bad luck. It would only incite others to express all their malicious impulses to destruction and harm towards them. For what more legitimate a target could you find for your desire to hurt others and destroy things than those that the Gods or Karma had already identified as ‘deserving’ of being harmed? Thus people learned to be ashamed of their bad luck, their misfortune, their poor holistic inheritances. Otherwise they risked bringing down further misfortune upon themselves. They risked giving others an excuse to attack them, to take advantage of their vulnerability, both physically and ideologically.

In a fair, productive, creative world

In a fair world the person who worked the hardest and longest, and made the most sacrifices should have access to the most resources. In a rational, logical, productive and creative world, resources would be allocated to people on the basis of their ability to most productively exploit them, to produce the greatest value from them. This would ensure that resources were most productively allocated, and that the most value possible would be derived from them.  And so we see an inherent conflict between fairness and productivity. But if we ensure that value is re-distributed fairly, we can reconcile the conflict. We can allow the most productive to keep a fair share of the value they produced, while rewarding those who worked hard and made sacrifices more fairly for their efforts and sacrifices, more than their actual production per se. This would mean paying less productive, but hard working people more than they had actually ‘earned’ as such, and paying the most productive much less than they actually earned. This will of course appeal to the least productive more than the most productive. However as all value is a social product, the most productive, if honest, will accept that their productivity was facilitated by the society as a whole, and that their individual part in the production could only take place in the context of that society. And so they would accept the legitimacy of sharing the holistic outcomes with the society. And the society would accept the need for some inequality to motivate the most talented to employing their talents more fully. And thus we have the Liberal Social Democratic solution for the age old economic challenge of deciding what gets produced by whom, how, and who gets to consume it.

Sadly in our world people actively prevent others from producing value, unless they are assured of personally benefiting from their actions. It is not enough that the entire society might benefit. The benefit must be immediate and personal. Preferably the facilitator will benefit more than the person doing the work, making the sacrifices, and producing the actual value. This is the only reason people ever allow an ambitious and talented colleague to go about their ambitious plans unhindered. This is the only reason they sacrifice the satisfaction of mobbing and harming their ‘better’ colleague. The chance to take credit for this hard worker’s efforts is a greater prize than the chance to act on their destructive, malicious, vicious tendencies, and satisfy these destructive impulses. As long as the person never gets to benefit from their own efforts and sacrifices themselves, the mob will be content to let them go about their work without actively hindering them, well, at least not as often as they would like to. They will still take the opportunity to harm and ridicule them, but they will resist the temptation to indulge in a a full out orgy of malice-driven, self-loathing fueled, ugly violence.  They will sacrifice the satisfying feelings of power and domination they enjoy when getting to inflict pain and harm upon other living creatures. They will sacrifice the satisfaction of destroying things that are more beautiful, valuable, talented, morally ambitious, and ‘better’ than themselves. They would prefer to destroy anything better than themselves, thus making themselves the best, but they sacrifice this, at least for now, for the promise of personal material benefits. They will resist sending all the talented, honest, healthy, beautiful, creative, productive people to the insane asylums, gulags, and concentration camps, only with the expectation of personal reward. Should this promise evaporate, then they will gleefully help Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot identify their ‘betters’, so they can be rounded up, humiliated, tortured, and then sent off to work on the farms and in labor camps. Could you really be so ignorant of history as to deny this?

Copyright 2011 Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s